Personally i only have 1 big reservation with party's and that's the exclusion wich probably would ocur ,wich could be against forum policy's and lead to trolling.
I can deffinatly see why party's could be fun ,deffinaly from a roleplaying perspective.I havn't got any problem with exclusion from a roleplaying perspective ,in most nations with strong party's favouritism is only logical ,so it needs a sopecial aproach to be succesfull in party politics ,and that
could be an other level of exitement.
However ,as such thing's go ,from the moment it goes a little wrong the moderaters
will intervene and i would more than agree with them.We can however experiment with it ,and it could prove to be fun to ,however we can only have one experiment ,when it fails party's will never be into the Demo game.So if we go into this route i would urge the veteran players to share their view on how such politics should be directed as to create a constructive and fun enviroment.
But i don't want to keep people from experimenting neither ,only by experimenting one can see how it would pan out.But if we experiment we should create a clear system to work from so that we minimilize dangers.
The big problem of party's is preventing exclusion.Now we could limit the amount party's could ellectorally receive ,or limit their members ,but that would then defeat the whole purpose of party's in the first place.You could argue that even if a party got the majority and could apoint an goverment individually ,it would still be up to the achievements of the party trough the term to decide if they would be reelected the next ellection.But if a party has more than 51% of the citizins youll easily end up with a problem ,and vote's could get tottaly dominated.That said ,while people will be member of a party ,it will still be up to the party member to vote this leader ,dissent could easily exist to when the party top doesn't mind it's own members.
I think ,with party's ,you would have to limit the amount of goverment positions to only a few.If there are 20 positions to be gotten ,then a party that seeks for ellectoral dominance will have it easier to get more members behind a single cause ,afterall there are more positions to reward people with.If positions are in minimal amount ,then most party members or a party that tries to be the largest will still only vote a minister in ,not be the actual minister ,wich make's it harder for party's to have a unified vision. (deffinatly largr ones) In addition ,there should be a limit of membership within a party ,a party should never have 50% or more of the total
active citizins behind them.
single unified vote
That said ,while i'm not tottaly pro party ,i am in favour of a single unified vote.As it is we vote ecvery person for every position individual ,in different poll threads.Personally i would like it to have 1 vote for everyone ,no voting on a specific position ,but obviously those with most vote's would become the ellected ministers.And that after the ellections the people with the most votes would decide who becomes what.
I made a little poll about that ,just to see the general reaction on it ,don't shoot me plz. (it's not season yet)
If you press this link ,it will make youre life better
I have an idea for change ,though granted it needs to be worked out to be secure.But the thought is to have a single unified voting system ,when ellections come we have 1 vote and one vote only ,we list everyone in a poll who runs for a position ,and people vote their candidate of choice.The person with the highest number of vote's gets the first chance for the highest position ,and possibly so forth untill all positions are filled.
In the past the seperate polls often led to discrepant results ,sometimes because for one position 3 strong members ran ,while an other position only had 2 weaker candidate's for ex. ,deffinatly certain positions were just less interresting and sometimes we had to accept people by merrit of being the only candidate.
Adittion: A unified vote could bring a new perspective to the concept of Party or citizin group ,as every person has effectivly 1 vote.Let me explain this: If a party that say represents more than 50% of the total citizins wants to dominate the ellectoral positions ,then that will be impossible ,at maximum a party will only be able to have it's weight in ellectoral vote's tho give it that percentage of positions.Say for ex that the party wants to be sure that it's candidate s PM ,then it has to have 51% of vote's needed at max to get it's candidate PM ,however this will put all it's vote's on that person and they will ONLY have the pm secured ,all the other positions ,how few votes they even have ,will go to other people.Any dominant party in ellectors my have a few ministers if they spread their votes well ,and even that will be a dangerous game (late determinal voting) and hard to coordinate.But as long as a party doesn't represent 100% of the citizins it will be impossible to dominate the political landscape ,the competition will always be able to lump it's vote's on an other candidate to get him an a secondary position atleast.
It would maybe create a fun enviroment for gameplay ,as voting would be way more strategic , a vote would have way more value then under the current voting system.In fact a unified vote would in general make formaions fo dominance harder ,Under the current system people often win a position by a mile due to few candidate's and people voting the obvious person for that position.